ReviewJournal of medical education and curricular development
A Systematic Review of Three-Dimensional Printing in Medical Education: Educational Impact and Methodological Quality.
Review in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Access to human tissue for medical education is becoming increasingly limited due to ethical, legal, and financial challenges. In this context, three-dimensional (3D) printing has emerged as a promising alternative, yet its educational impact requires systematic evaluation. This review assessed the effectiveness and methodological quality of 3D printed models (3DPMs) in medical education. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched through December 2024 for intervention studies (randomized controlled trials, single-group designs, non-randomized comparisons) employing 3DPMs among medical students, residents, or physicians. Quality was appraised using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI), and educational outcomes were categorized by Kirkpatrick levels. Results: Sixty-seven studies (5,329 participants) were included. At Kirkpatrick Level 1 (Reaction), 71.6% reported high learner satisfaction; 85.1% demonstrated significant knowledge/skill improvements (Level 2), and 56.7% observed concurrent gains. Only two studies assessed behavioural change (Level 3), and none evaluated patient or healthcare outcomes. The mean MERSQI score was 12.01 ± 1.95, indicating predominantly moderate quality; 69.8% were randomized trials. Fused deposition modeling was the most common printing technology, and the heart was the most frequently printed organ. Cognitive strategies underpinned nearly all interventions. Conclusions: 3DPMs consistently enhance satisfaction and knowledge in medical education, and there is growing evidence of skill transfer. However, higher-level behavioral and patient outcomes remain largely unexplored, and the quality of existing studies is predominantly moderate. Future research should focus on advanced Kirkpatrick levels and employ more rigorous designs to fully validate the educational benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.